Tony Blair: Basically, that it never won two successive terms of Government and, perhaps, that it never put the Conservative party flat on its back, which is where it is now. Thankfully, we are running an economy with low inflation, low mortgage rates and low unemployment; fortunately, we are doing a darn sight better than the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, who had—I thank him for allowing me to mention this—interest rates at 10 per cent. for four years, 3 million unemployed and two recessions. Whether it is old Labour or new Labour, it is a darn sight better than the Tories.

Charles Clarke: He was indeed a revolutionary in various respects, though rather an eccentric revolutionary. I think that I am right in saying that he used to stand naked in front of his windows to expose himself to the community as a whole. I am not sure that there is anybody doing that at the moment. [Interruption.] I do not recommend it.
	I wish to make it clear that the Home Office was not involved in any briefing on these proposals. It has been at pains to come first to the House on these matters. A phrase such as "anti-terrorist ASBO" is not one with which I would agree; I do not think that it is right in the context of the process.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on proportionality. He raises serious points on UK subjects but I put it to him—he knows that this is the case—that we have to address a reality, which is that there are UK subjects ready to use action to destroy the society of which we are a part. It is my obligation—and I think it is one shared by the right hon. Gentleman—to deal with that.
	In term of what the right hon. Gentleman says about going as far as we can to pursue normal rules of justice, to explore all avenues and to pursue all options, I agree with him. As I have said, prosecution in the courts is the best way to address these matters. That is the right way to proceed. We should not—I know that he does not—hide from the fact that all avenues having been explored, and so on, there are still issues that arise, including from some UK citizens. They are very small in number but they have to be addressed and they cannot be ignored.
	On procedure, as I said in my statement, there will be independent judicial scrutiny involving the hearing of evidence in open and closed session against the imposition of any order or any subsequent variation of an order. I envisage the use of special advocates in the closed sessions. There will be a mechanism for reviewing and modifying the conditions of any order as circumstances change. The new mechanism will itself be subject to independent judicial scrutiny. Individuals will be served the order and will be able to challenge both it and the conditions that it imposes. The subject of the order will be told as much as possible, commensurate with the need to safeguard sensitive intelligence material. Further details will be in the Bill that I shall publish.
	In response to the right hon. Gentleman's point about whether control orders will be indefinite in operation, I say that the order can be varied. The controls can be changed if the threat that the individual poses changes or diminishes over time. The orders can be challenged and they will be regularly reviewed, as I have indicated. On intercept evidence, I have set out the reasons clearly why I have taken the view that I have. Principally, it would not significantly increase our ability to secure convictions in this area. Technology is changing so rapidly that we should take account of that process. That said, I will continue to keep the situation under review, and be informed by the right hon. Gentleman and other Members as we consider these questions.
	I am delighted that the official Opposition take a broadly constructive approach on these matters. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers the difficult question of the balance of liberty and security, even for UK subjects, to recognise the obligations that we all have to put security at the centre of our preoccupations.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the expedition with which he has enacted and the inspired way in which he has responded to the very difficult and challenging judgement by the House of Lords. For what it is worth, I accept his view and that of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that there is a real threat that must be addressed. However, may I ask him about the prosecution avenue? Can he give the House an assurance that that will always be fully explored? Perhaps we need to revisit terrorism legislation to explore the width of some of those offences.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have never been soft on terrorism, having taken a great interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland and having been in Dar-es-Salaam on the day that al-Qaeda blew up the American embassy? However, certain actions may be justified if there is held to be a threat to the life of a nation? Perhaps what is going on in Iraq in relation to terrorism is a threat to the life of that nation. What similar threat exists in this country as distinct from serious threats like those in the past from the Provisional IRA? Should not such problems be dealt with by the courts rather than by special action through the Executive?

David Stewart: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable activities relating to certain arrangements involving the acquisition or disposal of land to be regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
	The Bill is designed to protect the elderly, the vulnerable and the unguarded from exploitation by the shadowy figures who lurk in the shallow end of the financial services gene pool. It would bring home reversion plans, which are a type of equity release scheme, under the full regulation and protection of the Financial Services Authority. In addition, it would provide a safety net of access to the financial ombudsman scheme and compensation. The Bill would also protect constituents who are, for example, purchasing Islamic products under the Ijara system or have a part- rental, part-purchase home tenure scheme.
	What are equity release schemes and how do home reversion plans fit into the bigger picture? Equity release schemes are basically financial products that allow homeowners to realise the value of their property. There are two main vehicles. The first is the lifetime mortgage, whereby homeowners take out a loan secured on their property. That is already covered by the FSA and is well protected.
	I am concerned about the second type—home reversions. They are subject to little regulation, control or monitoring. Homeowners sell part or all of their home in return for a lump sum, which is usually in the range of 30 to 65 per cent. of the property value. Such homeowners are usually over 60. They have a right to remain in the house under a lease until they die, with the proviso that they maintain the property, and they have to pay rent to the reversion provider. When the elderly person dies, the provider can sell the property. The lump sum received will depend on a series of factors, including the value of the property, which will not necessarily be independently surveyed, and the age, medical condition and life expectancy of the owners.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said in a similar debate:
	"Equity rich, cash poor, and slightly senile: the perfect victim for a whole new generation of financial service vultures."—[Official Report; 17 December 2003; Vol. 415; c. 275WH]
	The financing of home reversions at the small end of the market is largely about private individuals; there is no central register of reversion transactions. Let me give a few examples of what could happen. A GP could arrange a home reversion for an elderly, confused patient; a private individual could carry out a transaction for a recently widowed neighbour; or a publican could help out an elderly regular at their bar. There are no standards or benchmarking, and there is no protection for the consumer. Those are the perfect ingredients for the unscrupulous to manipulate, misuse and milk the unwary.
	I am not saying that all equity release schemes are a bad thing per se or that I have concerns about the whole industry. For example, the 17 members of the Safe Home Income Plans group provide high standards of consumer protection, with very few complaints and a market share of around 90 per cent. The overall market is worth £1.16 billion—a tremendous size. The Treasury estimates that 5 million homeowners over 60 are eligible for equity release plans, with a potential £700 million locked up in their homes.
	The problem relates historically to pension mis-selling, specifically the Equitable Life fiasco. As long as we have an unregulated market, a series of elephant traps will be waiting to snare the unsuspecting and vulnerable pensioner at risk from the modern-day snake oil salesman selling dodgy deals administered by back-street, here-today-gone-tomorrow Arthur Daleys. Home reversions have no licensing requirements, no compensation arrangements, and no comeback from mis-selling. They are about as regulated as the average episode of "Celebrity Big Brother".
	In conclusion, the Bill would protect the old and the vulnerable who are considering home revision equity release products. It would bring the sheriff—the Financial Services Authority—back to the wild west town. It would bring independence through the financial ombudsman scheme and access to compensation. I believe that the Bill has the support of hon. Members of all parties and I strongly commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Stewart, Angus Robertson, Sandra Osborne, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Ms Julia Drown, Sir Archy Kirkwood, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Bill Tynan, Glenda Jackson, John Robertson and Mr. Alistair Carmichael.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches seem to be saying, "Don't confuse us with the facts". I am presenting the facts. They might take a different view from mine on sitting on Tuesday evenings, and they are entitled to do so. I respect their sincerity and their different view of how this Chamber should operate. However, they cannot advocate a change back to the old hours by saying that he Commons has worked less hard under the new ones. On the contrary, we are working harder.

Oliver Heald: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, Members take the view that they want to take unwhipped business after 7 o'clock, they ought to vote for the Deputy Leader of the House's motion. The reason for that is that if one votes for the Leader of the House's motion, one is stuck with a firm cut-off at 7 o'clock.
	If I may continue on the Procedure Committee's responses to the questionnaires, the reasons that were given by Members for favouring evening sittings on Tuesday were well thought-through. They were not just, "Let's return to jolly evenings in the Smoking Room". The first and foremost reason was that there would be fewer clashes between House, Committee and other meetings, which was raised by 165 Members. The second reason was that there should be more time during office hours for constituency work and to respond to telephone calls, which was raised by 156 Members. The third was that there should be less concentration of meetings, which was raised by 132 Members. The fourth was that it would make more effective use of the parliamentary day and allow more visitors' tours. Other reasons given included improving collegiate atmosphere, but those attracted little support. The main reasons related to how to do this difficult job well.

George Howarth: I have discussed these matters with my hon. Friend on many occasions, as she says, and we have been friends for many years. However, that intervention only confirms me in my view that I should not have bothered to allow an intervention in the first place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) intervened on the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on the issue of family-friendly hours. For someone such as me, whose family is 200 miles away, these are not family-friendly hours. It would be impossible for me to commute back home to Knowsley from Westminster regularly. Hours could never have been family-friendly for me. However, I accept her point. It is not for me to decide what is family-friendly for someone else. Those who choose to base themselves in London will have a different take on what is family-friendly. It is a neutral argument whether the hours are or are not family-friendly. It depends on individual circumstances. We should be working towards what is in the best interests of conducting the business of the House in the best way possible. We should not be bothering ourselves too much with the argument about family-friendly hours, because those will vary from family to family and Member to Member.
	The original report that brought about change argued that the reforms would bring us closer to the public. Like most hon. Members, I keep a fairly careful eye on opinion polls. I do not necessarily change my views in accordance with the polls but it is important to know what people are thinking. In the two years or so since these reforms have been implemented, I have not noticed a huge outpouring of public affection for the people's elected representatives, whichever party they represent. If anything, if I am to judge by opinion polls and what we read in the newspapers, all of us—some more than others—are more unpopular than we were two years ago. If that was the objective, it seems that we have not satisfactorily met it.
	The other argument, which I have always found a bit strange, was that our constituents expect us, like them, to work normal hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for whom I have huge affection, not only because of her contribution in the House but because of the wisdom that she brings to almost all arguments, made the point that in her working life that never was the case. When I do surgeries on Friday evenings, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, never once has a constituent said to me, "What are you doing here at 9 o'clock at night doing a surgery with us? We expect you to work normal hours." In fact, sometimes they queue up until half-past 9 to see me. Never once do they say, "We don't think it's very good that you are working these long hours to try to resolve our problems."
	The same applies to Saturday mornings. When I help to open the new Northwood community centre on Saturday—the money was provided by a Labour Government—no one will be coming up to me and saying, "You shouldn't be here at the opening of this community centre. We expect you to be at home having a good rest after your efforts in Westminster on our behalf last week." So that argument does not stack up either.
	I want to finish on the point about what is modernisation and what is not. I was in the House in the 1980s, and used to sit up all night. In fact I once made a speech of two hours and 12 minutes on an amendment concerning the Durham Aged Miners housing association. What I found to say for two hours and 12 minutes I have no idea, but I can guarantee that it did not make the legislation under consideration any better. I accept that those days are gone and should remain in the past. Such filibustering—not that filibustering could ever take place in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—should not form any part of our proceedings. I do not want to go back to that.
	Many of our modernisation measures have been for the benefit of the way in which we conduct or business. I support them for that reason. What I do object to, however, is those who say they are modernisers then defining what modernisation is. If some of my hon. Friends—I will not single anyone out—declare that such and such is modernisation, then by definition it must be modernisation. I think I am a modernizer, but because I do not agree with them, I am branded as some northern male dinosaur who wants to spend all his time in the bars and thinks that is what it is all about. That is the subtext of what many of my hon. Friends have said, and the subtext of what they consider to be modernisation.
	I will be watching football in the Strangers Bar tonight, hoping that it is a draw because I do not like either Manchester United or Chelsea. But that is not what motivates me. How we conduct the business of the House and how we conduct ourselves as a House of Commons motivates me. Therefore, let us not have any more hon. Members saying, "We are the modernisers, everyone else is a dinosaur." It is not like that.
	I started by saying that the Leader of the House made a genuine effort to find consensus. We now know where that consensus is. The argument about modernisation should be about that. It should not be about modernisation as defined by someone else simply because that is what they want.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is making light of something that is rather serious. It is not just a question of our feeding ourselves, although that is an essential process for everybody on the planet. There is a much more serious point. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out in his submission, lunchtime provides an opportunity to meet constituents and people who have points to make to us. As a Front-Bench spokesman, it provides me with an opportunity to meet people involved with defence. Lunch was an important component, but lunch has been destroyed for three days of the week. If you want to participate in a debate or hear an important issue being debated in this House, lunch has been completely rubbed out, which substantially impairs our effectiveness in this House.

Paul Tyler: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. When I had a real job outside this House, I used to advise clients that any MP who had time for lunch was not worth talking to. That may put the hon. Gentleman in his proper category.
	We can all meet constituents at any time of the day, over a cup of coffee or tea. I encourage anyone who wants a substantial discussion with me to catch me at the end of the day, after my parliamentary duties are completed in this place. Many of us can do that; I recommend it to the hon. Gentleman, who may get a much better dinner than lunch.
	The important issue is that Committees should be in charge of their own timetable and be able to plan the way in which they operate. The other change for which there is broad support is that we should seek to take away the bunching of Committee work, all-party work and all the groups in this building from Tuesday and Wednesday. We should extend that work more into Thursdays and encourage it more on Mondays.
	The Select Committee's proposal that we bring forward the start time of the main business in the Chamber on Thursday to make it possible for there to be some substantial business, such as Second Reading or Opposition day debates, would mean more whipped business on Thursdays. That will mean more people being here, and more people being prepared, able and willing to take part in all forms of Committee activity. There is wide acceptance of the idea that avoiding the present midweek bulge on Tuesday and Wednesday is crucial to improving the balance of our workload through the parliamentary week. I hope that all hon. Members will support that proposal. I cannot see how any conscientious Member of Parliament could possibly oppose making Thursday a full parliamentary day again, and I hope that we will have support for that.
	As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned, the Committee took much evidence and spent much time trying to find a practical way to take private Members' Bills on Tuesday evenings, after the moment of interruption. There were considerable difficulties and, reluctantly, we came to the conclusion that the way in which private Members' Bills are handled will have to await fuller and deeper consideration. That is not least because there is a trade-off. If the Government give more time for private Members' Bills—and I hope that the Govt will take them more seriously—private Members may have to reduce the number that have a serious prospect of reaching the statute book. I would be in favour of that trade-off. I came 16th in the ballot one year, and apart from having to appear every Friday to see what might happen, it was simply an opportunity for some contact with the press. If we had only 10 Bills, but all of them serious candidates for the statute book, that would be a good deal to make.
	I hope that in due course the Modernisation Committee will address the whole issue. In the meantime, however, simply to transfer private Members' Bills from Friday to Tuesday evening would be enormously complicated. For example, it would mean that staff would be on parade from early in the morning until very late at night on Tuesday. That would have staffing resource and financial consequences.
	I agree with the Leader of the House about deferring all Divisions after the first on a Thursday. Imagine if we had voted on a reasoned amendment to a Second Reading on a Thursday, but could not vote on the Bill itself. Though it would be attractive to ensure that we could all get away after the first Division on a Thursday evening, it would be absurd to restrict the House by saying that the second and any subsequent Divisions had to be deferred until the following Wednesday. I hope that the House will recognise that. I accept the assurances given by the Leader of the House that he would seek to avoid having a succession of Divisions at 6 pm on a Thursday.
	Before I leave the subject of the Standing Orders, I wish to address Standing Order No. 14(2), and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to give me a specific assurance on the issue. It is now wildly out of date. My colleagues and I are very disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with the allocation of Opposition days more sensibly. The allocation does not even follow the Standing Order as it is written, and I hope that we will receive an undertaking from the Deputy Leader of the House, or the Leader of the House if he is back in his place, that the matter will be reviewed in the light of the parliamentary arithmetic after the election, in line with all the other allocations. Every Committee is allocated on a proportional basis, according to the strength of the parties in the House, and that too should be reflected in Standing Order No. 14(2).
	I strongly endorse the recommendations of the report from the Modernisation Committee on reconnecting Parliament with the public. We decided in the course of our inquiry that we should place much more emphasis on electronic accessibility. I understand the concerns that were expressed earlier about visiting groups, especially schools. We all like to take schools round this building and to show them a parliamentary democracy at work. However, if students in my constituency happen to come here once in their school lifetime, they are lucky; coming from Cornwall is an expensive business for a low-income area. If they do come, the likelihood that the visit will coincide with a time when they are really interested in what is going on here is limited. It is far more likely that they will want to go online to see what we are doing and to interact with the work of our Standing and Select Committees. Therefore, the emphasis given in the report to online accessibility is the true value-for-money option. In due course, we will no doubt have a wonderful new visitor centre, but that will be many years, and many millions of pounds, hence.

Eric Forth: Of course that is true. However, I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that, as elected Members, our primary duty is here in the House. In the hon. Lady's case, she is here to support the Government but hold them to account—in my case, I am here to oppose the Government and hold them to account—and to legislate. What we do for our constituents we do in our different ways, and that is right and proper. For the hon. Lady to suggest that her constituents, in some mysterious way, should come before her work at Westminster strikes me as a rather odd interpretation of her duties. I would not accept that as a conclusion.
	If we accept the proposition—I hope that most Members will do so—that their Lordships now do more valuable parliamentary work than we do, that must, at least in some way, be because the Government have less control over what happens in the House of Lords and because their Lordships sit during the hours that they believe are appropriate for doing their job as parliamentarians.

Eric Forth: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. If he wanted to, he could tempt me into saying that perhaps we would do a better job if, as in the good old days, every Bill were considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. That would have the valuable effect of slowing down the progress of legislation, which I am sure we would all consider to be highly beneficial.
	The problem with the Parliament-office block analysis that we are being offered more and more by the so-called "modernisers" is the implication that underlies it, which is that we are here to process legislation as quickly and conveniently as possible. For a legislating Government, that is manna from heaven, but it does not make parliamentary sense.
	I admire colleagues who tell me that their constituents are hanging on our every word and gazing laser-like upon what we do in this place. Admire my constituents as I do, few of them spend much time talking to me about the hours that the House of Commons works, or the way in which it is structured. They prefer to trust me and to leave that to me, and they are right to do so.
	If we are talking about perceptions, we must be careful about the analysis. That leads me to say a few words about nonsensical motion 3, under the heading "Connecting Parliament with the Public". It contains a lot of vacuous and gratuitous nonsense. It is self-serving, self-delusional and rather sad. At the very same time that many Members have complained that because of the changes we have made, which we are now discussing, our constituents have fewer opportunities to come to the House, we produce nonsense about parliamentary road shows, which would involve some nonsensical bus puffing out what we do to a hapless public, as if that would make them any more impressed with what we do.
	I asked the Leader of the House earlier whether he thought that the much-vaunted euro road show, on which huge amounts of public money were spent a short time ago, would be an exemplar for what the parliamentary road show will do. He was unable to give an answer. We know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is another boondoggle, another piece of nonsense and something that will cost a lot of money and have no effect.
	The same ridiculous motion continues,
	"authorises the House of Commons Commission to fund the publication and distribution of a new voters' guide".
	That would involve more money, more nonsense and more material going through letterboxes that would hardly ever be read.
	If we want to be serious about a new voters' guide, I would want it to be linked back—this is something that the House will hardly ever hear me say but I will say it this once; it is a novelty and I offer it for what it is worth—to the website so that young people who come to our website could access the guide without it being printed, distributed and put through letterboxes, only to be put in waste bins throughout the land. The proactivity that is mentioned in the next ridiculous line of this absurd motion would not be by us at taxpayers' expense but by the voters or the young people, if they wanted to access information about us and what we do. Why do we not turn the proposal on its head and save the hapless taxpayer some money, so he or she is not asked to spend money on a guide that they will almost certainly never read?
	I hope that I will have an opportunity to vote against the motion. It rather pathetically exemplifies how we look through the wrong end of the telescope when we engage in this sort of exercise over and again. We talk at great length about the hours that we work and the perceptions that people have. We regret that the public take less and less interest in what we do, and then we wonder why that may be.
	I would offer as a simple solution the fact that what we say is often desperately boring and uninteresting. What we do in the Chamber is often so consensual these days that people cannot tell the difference between any of us. As for whether they should turn up for the next election to vote, I suspect that that will be determined by people's perceptions of whether what we are offering is of relevance to them, whether they have a real choice and whether they think that the outcome of the next election is so obvious and pre-determined that their turning out will make no difference.
	Those are entirely different matters from the hours that we work or people thinking that if we work late into the night we are all slightly potty and not worth voting for. My analysis would be completely at odds with what we have been offered up to now. I shall vote for a restoration of the Tuesday hours, which would be a small step in signalling that the House wishes to take more seriously its responsibilities vis-à-vis the Government. I expect no more than that.
	I will not vote, sadly, for the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), because it, too, suggests that we believe that the proceedings of the House should be compromised, in this case, so that people can catch their train or aeroplane to go home, which is utterly the wrong message to give. We should tell people that we are prepared to work in Parliament as long as necessary to do our job properly. If that causes us the odd inconvenience, we should be prepared to accept it.

Gerald Howarth: As my right hon. Friend says, in his case, they are not getting one. On one occasion, a constituent sent me an e-mail saying, "I saw you open my previous e-mail" at such and such a time, and that I had not yet replied. I responded, "I am not an automaton sitting in front of a computer screen. I am a Member of Parliament and I have different duties."
	The Foreign Secretary also mentioned in his submission the effect that consolidation of Prime Minister's Question Time into a single day has had on attendance in the House and on the whole ambience of the House and the way in which it is treated. He is absolutely right to say that taking away that quarter of an hour of Prime Minister's Question Time on Thursday has made Thursday into a "come if you can" day. Otherwise, Members go off and do something else. That has reduced this place to at best a three-day week, but as far as most of us are concerned, it is more like a two-and-a-half-day week.
	I support the amendment of my namesake, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). It is an entirely sensible and modest proposition. It is not a return to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) called the dark old days. It is a sensible and modest proposal, and it should commend itself to all Members of the House.

Gerald Howarth: Yes, and that is why it will not get reported, but I will come on to that in a minute.
	No one is suggesting that we return to all-night sittings. There was something medieval about all-night sittings, and I have no desire to return to them. A return to a 10 o'clock finish on Tuesday night has been represented, however, as somehow a return to all-night sittings. That is simply absurd. This is a compromise that therefore ought to commend itself to the House.
	The right hon. Member for Livingston made two points to which I want to refer. First, he said that the changes that we have instituted would bring us into line with others. I have tried to deal with that argument by saying that I do not believe that we are like others. If one works in the City these days, however, one is sometimes there all night and all weekend. My son is a trainee lawyer working in the City, and during the Marks and Spencer business, he was there from Friday until Monday morning. We should not therefore delude ourselves that we are somehow exceptional in that respect.
	What the right hon. Member for Livingston said about the convenience of the new hours for the media tells us an awful lot about this Government's desire to manipulate and to manage the news. The idea that a statement made at 4 o'clock in the afternoon will not get through to the people is simply ridiculous. It gets through to them on the 6 o'clock news, or on the 10 o'clock news, which most people watch. The hours are not in Parliament's interests, but they are unquestionably in the Government's interests. As I hope to be on the Government side of the House on 6 May, I could be said to have a vested interest in a system that benefits the Government, but I am here principally as a Member of Parliament. That is my first duty, and that is why I am not attending a conference on air power this afternoon. I am here because I think that this Parliament is important to the people.
	As always, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) spoke about this place with vigour and passion. He spoke of the failure of the press to report the House. Perhaps we are not as well perceived now as we have been in the past, but whereas the newspapers—especially what used to be called the broadsheets—used to feature an extensive report of comments made by individual Members, the only report now is the parliamentary sketch. Although it is often very amusing, the sketch is invariably trivial, and it invariably writes down this place and pokes fun at it. That is the purpose of the sketch. In the old days, the sketch sat alongside the objective serious report. Now there is no objective serious report, only the poking fun. Is it any wonder that the public thinks that this place is just fun, when that is the only way in which those who command the media are prepared to broadcast it to the nation?

Gerald Howarth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but my point, which has already featured in the debate, concerns how this place is perceived. The press are not reporting this place, although the hours have been made easier for them. Perhaps their reporting was better when much of the activity took place when the sun was over the yardarm than it is at a more abstemious time of day. I do not know; what I do know is that they are not reporting this place seriously.
	This afternoon we have a real opportunity to make a modest change that commands support throughout the House, which would even out our week a little, and which would not greatly inconvenience Members with young families who live in London and want to do things on weekday evenings. They would still have Wednesday and Thursday evenings. I think that in the interests of Parliament, in the interests of holding the Government to account and in the interests of managing our time in this place, a move to a 10 pm finish on Tuesdays is the very least we could do.

Alice Mahon: I could not agree more. I also wish to reject the notion that women do not want to enter Parliament because of the hours. We have just had a selection procedure in Halifax, at which brilliant women from John O'Groats to Land's End queued up. Not one of them asked about the hours in this place. In 18 years, I have never had an e-mail, letter or message that has said, "I would vote for you, but you work silly hours." No one at any surgery has ever said that either. It is nonsense to claim that our hours affect whether people vote.
	The new hours have severely damaged Parliament and its effectiveness. The Chamber is half empty and the scrutiny of the Executive does not happen as it should. Committee sittings have been disrupted. We invite expert witnesses, but have to leave them when the Division bell goes. What is the response of the so-called Modernisation Committee? It advises us to meet in the evenings or on a Saturday morning. It is nonsense. Nor have I have ever seen before so many vacancies on popular Select Committees on the Labour party Whip.
	Members no longer get to see Ministers. They used to have to eat here at least a couple of nights a week. They now go off to some fashionable restaurant or club. They come here in a chauffeur-driven car and live in a little elite bubble, and we cannot get at them. I used to get at Ministers regularly when we worked late. Ministers no longer have as much contact with Back Benchers and that removes them from the real world. Many of my constituents work on a 24-hour clock. I did it myself when my children were younger and it is nonsense to say that people do not.
	Outside meetings are also suffering. Somebody has already mentioned the fact that we had only one day to debate the war, which was possibly the most important vote in my 18 years in Parliament. I have held meetings in Westminster Hall and other parts of the Palace and the security people have come in and said, "It's half-past 8 and we need you to empty the place." It is sad that such meetings should be shut down.
	The new hours have shrunk the parliamentary week, interfered with MPs' activities, undermined public access, made no difference to women wanting to come here and reduced contact between MPs and Ministers, not to mention contact among MPs. The new hours have destroyed one of the greatest debating chambers in the world and the Modernisation Committee should vote for the change back. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, if an amendment is agreed to the motion on sitting hours, the Question will immediately thereafter be put on any consequential amendments. When the amendments have been disposed of, the Question will be put on the main Question on sitting hours, amended or not, as the case may be. The Questions will then be put forthwith on the motions on connecting Parliament with the public and on the car mileage allowance. The first amendment relates to the time of Tuesday sittings.
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [24 January].
	Amendment proposed: (a), in line 6, leave out "at half-past two o'clock, on Tuesdays and" and insert "and Tuesdays at half-past two o'clock, on".—[Mr. George Howarth.]

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Consequential amendments made: (b), in line 9, leave out 'Tuesday or'.
	(c), in line 14, leave out
	'at seven o'clock on Tuesdays and'
	and insert—
	'and Tuesdays, at seven o'clock on'.
	(d), in line 17, leave out from 'after' to 'Wednesday' in line 20 and insert—
	Tuesdays' insert 'between half-past nine o'clock and two o'clock;
	(aa) on Wednesdays beginning at half-past nine o'clock, which shall be suspended from half-past eleven o'clock until half-past two o'clock and may then continue for up to a further two and a half hours; except that if the'.
	(e), in line 39, leave out ', four o'clock on Tuesday or' and insert—
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock on'.
	(f), in line 45, leave out
	', eight o'clock on Tuesday or'
	and insert—
	'or Tuesday, eight o'clock on'.
	(g), in line 48, leave out
	', half-past eight o'clock on Tuesday or'
	and insert—
	'or Tuesday, half past eight o'clock on'.
	(h), in line 54, leave out
	'four o'clock on any specified Tuesday or'
	and insert—
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock on any specified'.
	(i), in line 59, leave out
	'four o'clock if it is a Tuesday or'
	and insert—
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock if it is a'.
	(j), in line 61, leave out
	'half-past ten o'clock on a Tuesday or'
	and insert—
	'or Tuesday, half-past ten o'clock on a'
	(k), in line 67, leave out
	'four o'clock on Tuesday or'
	and insert—
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock on'.
	(l), in line 77, leave out from 'insert' to 'Wednesdays' in line 80 and insert—
	'or Tuesdays, between the hours of twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock in the morning and half-past one o'clock in the afternoon on'.—[Mr. Donohoe.]
	Amendment proposed: (m), in line 64, at end insert—
	'Line 6, at beginning insert "Subject to paragraph (2A) below,".
	Line 28, at end insert—
	"(2A) Sub-paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph (2) above shall not apply to sittings of the House on Thursdays.".'.—[Mr. Donohoe.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 388.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Declaration of Confidentiality

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4.

John McDonnell: The new clause demonstrates that if we had a thorough commitment to best value we would enable in-house bids to be made, as is the case with best value in local government and other services. There would not be prejudice against the public sector, as has sometimes been in the case in the past in the awarding of central Governments contracts. There is a need to reassure the general public and the House with an explicit statement in legislation that best value will apply to the merger of the departments, and that there will be adequate scrutiny of the best value scheme that is introduced. Only when the House is confident that there is thorough parliamentary scrutiny will we restore confidence in the ability of the new department and other Government Departments to manage their own affairs with regard to new technology and property schemes.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deal with the process of parliamentary scrutiny. There was some debate in Committee about the definition of the commissioners' functions. To put it bluntly, the amendments would require them to retain existing functions. If new functions are transferred to them, or if there is a transfer of functions away from the department, there should be parliamentary scrutiny and an explicit parliamentary decision by the affirmative procedure, rather than by the negative procedure envisaged in the Bill. That would restore confidence in the process of the merger and the future operation of the new department.
	In Committee, the Paymaster General said that the transfer of functions in the Bill would take place using the process that pertains to other Departments, and would be achieved either by Order in Council or negative resolution. That was a revelation to me, and I would prefer all transfers of departmental functions to be brought before the House so that it can make a decision using the affirmative procedure. That would facilitate proper scrutiny of such transfers and delegations of powers between departments. It is even more important, when establishing a new department, that we are clear about its functions, so the House should engage with the process of the construction, allocation and, at times, the transfer of those functions. We should participate in the bedding down of the new department and increase the confidence of the general public and the House in its operation.
	I would welcome assurances from the Minister about the process of continuous monitoring. Will the agenda set out in new clause 1 and the amendments be followed in that process, and will there be adequate opportunities to report to the House? There should be opportunities for debate and participation by all hon. Members in the critical path taken by the merger, which we all support and believe is overdue.

John Healey: The current arrangements in Northern Ireland for external scrutiny of police functions are more complex than in Scotland or in England and Wales. We therefore wanted time to get things right. The greater complexity in Northern Ireland, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, meant that it was important that we had fully discussed the proposals with those bodies in Northern Ireland before we framed the regulation. I do not accept that in tabling these amendments the House has not been allowed properly to scrutinise the arrangements, having previously had a substantial debate on the arrangements in principle.
	Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 will allow the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to co-operate effectively in carrying out investigations into complaints about HMRC. I hope that they clarify aspects of the arrangements that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised in CommitteeAmendments Nos. 12 and 13 are technical amendments to clause 31. They combine the different subsections dealing with police powers of arrest in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is no impact on the powers conferred by the clause upon the police either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland.

John Burnett: I shall make a few important points on this group of amendments that set out arrangements for inspection, complaints of misconduct and confidentiality. They also set out the duties, or embellish the duties, of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
	Earlier this week the draft Revenue and Customs (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2005 were published, setting out the powers to be given to the IPPC. The Inland Revenue's serious complaints against staff were handled by an organisation that I believe was known as the board's investigation office. The similar function at Customs and Excise was carried out by its internal investigation division. I understand that the two organisations will merge. I believe that the merged organisation will be called HM Revenue and Customs internal investigation division.
	In Committee, I expressed my concerns about possible confusion and duplication, or even triplication, in the functions of the IPPC, the ombudsman and the Revenue adjudicator. Will the Economic Secretary explain the extent of the separate functions of the new internal investigation division and the IPPC? Will the new IID deal with just trivial misconduct, leaving all the more serious cases of misconduct to be dealt with by the IPCC?
	It is important that we avoid confusion. There should be clear-cut rules that set out which organisation is to investigate what. I hope that the Minister will be able to spell out for the House the functions of each organisation. When he has explained those separate functions, will he set out the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise referral obligations? For example, who should refer if a junior member of HMRC notices corrupt behaviour by a fellow official or officials? Does that employee have a statutory duty and a means directly to refer the matter to the IPCC without breaching the terms of his or her contract of employment? What are the statutory obligations on members of the merged organisation and the internal investigation division to refer misconduct to the IPCC? Will voluntary referral and disclosure of non-specified offences be permitted, as happens in the arrangement between the police and the IPCC?
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Amendment agreed to.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Dawn Primarolo: This Bill is the start of a major change in the way that taxes and revenues are administered in this country. The O'Donnell review envisaged significant changes to the way in which the new department of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will conduct business, resulting from an ability to look across the affairs of all taxpayers. The integration of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise is a huge job, and it will take time to complete. The Bill does not deliver a fully integrated department from day one, but it is a first, important step in the process of integration, as it enables new working practices from which integration can develop. Where that integration requires substantive policy or legislative change, it will be subject to consultation in the usual way.
	Clear benefits will be realised from the merger. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will, over time, be able to provide a truly integrated service to taxpayers, which will result in a more consistent and coherent approach to their affairs. It will be able to improve the quality of taxpayer contact with the organisation by taking a look right across their tax affairs and tailoring its response accordingly. Such developments will also help to realise efficiency benefits by improving the effectiveness of revenue administration and helping to reduce the tax gap. The ability to look across a taxpayer's affairs will allow the department to target its resources more effectively on areas of risk.
	The integration of two of the oldest departments in Whitehall is an historic occasion. The Inland Revenue can trace its history back more than 300 years, while a nationally organised customs system dates from the 13th century. The legislation will complete the process of amalgamating the major revenue-collecting arms of the state, which began as long ago as 1834 with the amalgamation of the Boards of Stamps and of Taxes. The staff in both Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue have consistently delivered the highest level of service, and their professionalism is beyond question. The formation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will build on the proven track record of staff in both departments to deliver a world-class organisation that is truly fit for the 21st century. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Economic Secretary and I have the greatest confidence in the work of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and the Economic Secretary and I are proud to have served as departmental Ministers. We look forward to the creation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Andrew Tyrie: I agree with quite a bit of what the Paymaster General has said, but not all of it. When we first had a meeting about the Bill in December in the Treasury, she said that she intended to introduce a minimalist Bill and she saw it mainly as a consolidating measure. In the main, she has stuck to her promise to us that day. However, there have been 120 Government amendments and five new clauses. Even on Report, 29 amendments were tabled. Given that the measure has been thought about for so long, and considered over the past four years, first with a view to not having it and then with a view to having it, there seems to have been a lack of discipline on the drafting side.
	None the less, we had a constructive debate on the Bill in Committee. I gave the Minister advance warning of every aspect I wanted to examine and told her which clauses I intended to consider, and she responded positively, on the whole by trying to answer the points that I made, rather than retreating to the kind of fob-offs that Ministers often give spokesmen in Committee. I thank her for that, and for the warm spirit with which she approached a number of the amendments that we tabled, particularly on the oath, which she has now broadly accepted.
	The Economic Secretary also accepted an amendment that I tabled, or at least the spirit of it, on performance targets and statistics for the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office.The Paymaster General agreed in Committee to re-examine the powers of the new department and to look at the way in which the Keith committee went about its work as a possible template for the way in which that might be accomplished. That was widely welcomed outside and is a great step forward, so we have made significant progress. We have a better Bill now than at the start of the process, and one cannot always say that about legislation.
	We did not get satisfactory answers on a number of points, but I will not go through them all. One of them has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is not now in his place—limits on the powers to transfer functions to other Departments. It a major concern and we have still not received satisfactory assurances. Neither have we received from the Government assurances on the removal of Treasury scrutiny of payments to informers under clause 22. Payments to informants to the Revenue and to Customs used to be subject to consultation with the Treasury, but that is no longer the case. It used to be written into legislation that that was required, but it is not there now. Again, that is a cause for some concern. There are a number of other loose ends, which those who follow these matters will have noted from the Committee stage.
	We are left with one big issue, to which we alluded on new clause 1. I shall not rehearse the arguments. Anybody who has followed the debate and the course of the Bill through all its stages will be left with the nagging suspicion that the Government may not have thought the Bill through carefully enough. Nothing that has been published shows that the Government have thought it through. Even though we were not opposing her on it, the Minister never gave a satisfactory explanation for her complete U-turn from the position that she held in 2000, when she opposed a merger, on the grounds that the benefits could be obtained without one. No explanation has been given for the wholly inadequate regulatory impact assessment or the perfunctory cost-benefit analysis presented to us.
	I hope very much that the Bill turns into an Act that will work well for the Revenue and Customs. I share the thoughts with which the Paymaster General ended, about the dedication and loyalty of so many of the staff in those Departments. Indeed, that was the very first remark that I made in my Second Reading speech. I am, however, left with this lingering doubt: the Paymaster General has mentioned several times this evening that the measure will help to reduce the tax gap, but she has not indicated the extent to which she hopes to shrink it or, even if an estimate has not been made, explained exactly how that might be accomplished.
	The private sector is littered with stories of mergers that have gone ahead in the hope that huge synergies would be available, but which resulted in the disappointing discovery a few years later that most or all of those synergies did not exist. I worry that we may experience something similar with this Bill. We will watch carefully to see how the measure develops—in a few months' time, perhaps I will be watching from the Government Benches, in which case the Bill would be of particular concern to me.
	I regret that new clause 1 was not added to the Bill, because it would have given us a clear yardstick by which to judge whether the merger is sensible, but we will just have to wait and see. I hope that the Government are right, but I fear that there might be a mess.

Derek Twigg: There is no doubt about the importance that my hon. Friends put on this subject.
	The Liberal Democrats would fund higher education entirely from the taxpayer through a new super tax. They have said how much super tax they would spend on higher education, but have not made it clear how much higher education needed to expand or how future expansion would be funded. There could be no guarantee that the funding would be forthcoming or would be maintained over time as other priorities emerge.
	There is a real question as to whether higher education would get the money. That is the nub of the problem. Being centrally dependent on the state means that higher education must take its chances with other competing priorities in public spending decisions. The record shows that, over the long term, that does not work well. During the 1990s, there was a large reduction in the unit of funding for higher education—a fall of 36 per cent. in real terms between 1989 and 1997.
	We should remember two things. First, not everyone goes into higher education—currently, 44 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds go into higher education. Secondly, higher education confers substantial benefits, both social and financial. In particular, the rate of return to having a degree is substantial.
	It is therefore fair to ask those who benefit from higher education to make a contribution to the cost of higher education. It is important to stress that it is a contribution—the Government still make substantial funding available to universities, and will continue to do so. Our point is that it is not fair to the taxpayer for graduates not to be asked to contribute. The advantage of Government policy—fees supported by income-contingent loans—is that the graduate still pays, and through the tax system, but universities are much more masters of their own destiny, with an independent source of revenue.
	Every Member knows of, and values, the contribution made to national life by Lord Dearing. He has done great work in education for this Administration and the last one, and we have valued his independent approach. His national committee of inquiry into higher education in 1996 and 1997 espoused the principle that students should make a contribution to the cost of higher education. That led to the introduction of fees in the first place. The logic is as strong today, if not stronger. Students should make a contribution, but it is better for them to do so when they are graduates. Our fee-deferral arrangement allows that.
	Government is about tough choices. The future economic success of the country depends on our getting our higher-education policy right. There could be no more important topic than this. It simply is not realistic to think that we can fund higher education now, when 44 per cent. of people aged between 18 and 30 are going into it, in the same way as we did in the mid-1960s, when only 8 per cent. did so. We accept that going for tuition fees is not an easy option, but it is the right one, and the only realistic way forward.